Posted by: Cortillaen | 02/06/2009

Comments on Abortion

This is just a repository for some of my posts on other sites, on the off-chance that they get deleted at some point in the future.  I hope to take a day or two and put together a single, coherent post on the subject soon.  Then I can just link it instead of repeating myself so often.  I’ll also be including whatever spawned the posts.  Context is good.  All posts were on one of my favorite haunts, and the birth-place of my appellation,

Is This The Sound of Pro-Choice Conceding Defeat?

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.

What if pro-choicers wrote a column filled with well-articulated pro-life arguments . . . and never mustered a substantive response? Would it suggest they have effectively conceded defeat on one of the great moral issues of the day?

That “what if” becomes reality in Abortion’s battle of messages in today’s LA Times. As noteworthy as the column’s substance is the identity of one of the co-authors: none other than leading pro-choice light Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL [and current John Edwards advisor].

Consider these excerpts, which with minor editing could just as easily have come from a Bill Buckley column.

  • Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view.
  • Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.
  • These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into “the human community.” Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?
  • Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and “life-affirming” lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term “culture of life.” President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
  • In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion.

How do the authors go about refuting the litany of weighty pro-life arguments they present? Cue the cricket chirps. Rather than presenting a single substantive argument in defense of their position, they make a hand-wringing call for process:

If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.Not a substantive word about how the pro-choice movement could regain that moral high ground ceded to the pro-life movement.

What’s the sound of a white flag waving? Will the MSM cover what might be a tectonic shift in the moral landscape? And how about a probing question on abortion from CNN at the Dem debate on January 31st?

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at

“Now, we rarely hear them

Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge.” Anyone else notice to implication that being against the murder of innocent children is unsohpisticated? Apparently, if your argument is unaccompanied by plenty of lingual gymnastics, it can’t possibly be a good one.

Anyway, everyone (who counts) understands that the premeditated, willful destruction of a human being’s life is 1st degree murder. The primary argument in abortion is at what point does a bundle of organic matter suddenly become human being. Frankly, the whole argument is idiotic. Babies develop over months, and people are constantly trying to set an arbitrary point in that process as the instant the entity suddenly becomes a human being. The exact moment in time when the heart, lungs, or brain become functional is completely irrelevant, and denying a child humanity just because it hasn’t reached that point is an atrocity. That kind of thought process is the same as denying someone humanity because their brain is not devoloped enough to support speech or even (get ready for it) because their skin is a different color. Yes, I’m equating abortion mentality to racism. However, there is a unique diference between killing an unborn child and killing a mute: Given time, the baby would devolop whatever biological function is deemed necessary to be human. Not only do abortionists kill unborn children because of an uncontrollable biological difference, that difference is only temporary.

Imagine a woman visiting her son in the hospital after he had broken a leg. As she walks in the room, she pulls out a knife and stabs the boy to death. The police ask her why she would do such a thing, and she replies that her son was a liability to her, and her family had always held the belief that someone who can’t walk isn’t really human. When the astonished officer points out that he would have been able to walk in a couple months when the cast came off, her only response is, “He didn’t have two usable legs right then, so he wasn’t really a human being. It’s not murder; I was just getting rid of baggage.”

Right about now, people dead-set on considering unborn children inhuman until proven otherwise would probably ask what I consider to be the feature defining an entity as a human being, and why is my answer any less arbitrary than theirs. The answer: DNA. The instant an egg is fertilized, it is a living entity with a DNA code identifying it as both human and unique from the mother and the father. The only trait that exists equally within all humans is the section of our DNA identifying us as homo sapiens. Our species is biologically defined by that code. Remove any part of a normal human, lungs, heart, brain, skin, anything, and you’ll still have a human; likely a dead human with missing parts, but still a human. This section of DNA cannot be removed and cannot be changed without rendering an entity another creature altogether.

Of course, using DNA as the defining feature for a human being is problematic for abortionists since it reflexively defines a child as human at the moment of conception. In their minds, the emotional impact of parenting hardships outweighs the (emotionally unimpressive) only biological absolute available, so they continue to argue for one arbitrary point in time or development after another to keep from having to acknowledge the gravity of their actions: Murder in the first degree.

So, Ms. Michelman, was that sufficiently “sophisticated” for you? I know there weren’t any deep, philosophical meanderings about relative morality, but, to be blunt, I prefer to deal in reality. Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

“With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you.” -Miyamoto Musashi

EDIT: I occasionally wonder exactly for whom I write things like this… If reading it caused any sort of brain activity for you, there’s the answer. 😉

Next round features someone’s post (and a couple follow-ups) before I get into it:


This is a topic I am the middle on and I see both points of view. I used to be 100 percent pro choice, but this site has actually let me see the error of my ways.

I am not pro-life yet. I oppose partial birth abortion, but I believe it is okay to abort a fetus if it is diagnosed with downs syndrome or a serious birth defect or in cases of rape or incest.

As far as regular abortions go. As a personal choice, it is something I will never consider for my family. I did not realize how developed the child was when it was aborted. In some cases the head, feet etc are already formed.

At the same time I do not know if I agree with taking the choice away from other people. I see many comments day in and day out about how liberals enjoy killing babies. Terminating a pregnancy is usually a agonizing decision for an individual and I seriously doubt a high percentage of these women do not give it a second thought.

To answer your question TM, I would leave this issue with the Individual States

How does Romney stop the applause?

Romney shows his compassion

Some time later, another person created a new thread on the topic, and I decided to make known one of my pet peeves in the issue, something I hadn’t discussed at length previously:

Some thoughts on Abortion

In last night’s debate Obama defended his stance on abortion by stressing the importance of giving women free choice. Yet this argument has gone beyond the point of absurdity. It’s not about choice anymore at all. It’s about something much bigger. And yet conservies sit around year after year watching the left move the goalposts on abortion doing little more than whining about it.

So the next time there’s a discussion about abortion, I want someone on the pro-life side to bring this up with vigor. Expose the true nature of this “choice” and start defining this issue the way it really is.

-An abusive stepfather intimidates a young girl into getting an abortion behind her mother’s back. Who is really choosing there? Yet John Kerry tells us that the law should be on the stepdad’s side, and abortion clinics are notorious for ignoring signs of domestic abuse. The left refuses any legislation aimed at protecting these girls.

-A scared 15 year old walks into Planned Parenthood seeking advice. The grownups on the staff promptly tell her to lie about her boyfriend and pressure her into believing that abortion is the best answer. Whose choice is that? Yet Planned Parenthood attacks anyone who exposes this and is almost sacrosanct against any legislation.

-Conservative taxpayers who don’t like abortion watch their dollars pay for free clinics against their protest. Pharmacists who don’t like abortion risk being fired if they don’t offer retroactive medicine. Who is free to choose there?

-A young man willing to become a father watches helplessly as his wife or girlfriend walks into a clinic and removes his own flesh and blood. Yet if she wants to keep the baby, he’s saddled with child support for eighteen years. Either way this young man has no say in his own destiny. Where is the freedom of choice in that?

-Public schools take field trips to abortion centers but refuse to allow a pro-life activist on campus to offer an alternative view. Whose choices are really being made?

For the left, abortion has moved beyond the arena of choice. They want free, unfettered abortion on demand, no matter how many people it ends up hurting. They want Planned Parenthood to stay in business even if they have to make that choice for women for themselves. They don’t want it to be a choice – they want it to be a common practice.

The matter of abortion is

The matter of abortion is not, and has never been, about choice or women’s rights.  In fact, it’s probably the simplest issue on the table in terms of the question being asked:  “When does life begin?”  Answering that question is somewhat less simple so long as you approach it from the position that some level of abortion should be kept.  From a purely rational perspective, it’s remarkably easy to answer.

  • As any mother can tell you, a baby is very much alive before birth, so the whole first breath thing can’t be used to define birth.  For the idiots who declare any baby who cannot survive without a ventilator and specialized equipment not alive, try using that argument in defense of murdering someone in the ICU.
  • Trying to define the beginning of life by the function of some specific organ is a level of discrimination beyond the level of racism.  To quote myself, “That kind of thought process is the same as denying someone humanity because their brain is not developed enough to support speech or even (get ready for it) because their skin is a different color. Yes, I’m equating abortion mentality to racism. However, there is a unique difference between killing an unborn child and killing a mute: Given time, the baby would develop whatever biological function is deemed necessary to be human. Not only do abortionists kill unborn children because of an uncontrollable biological difference, that difference is only temporary. Imagine a woman visiting her son in the hospital after he had broken a leg. As she walks in the room, she pulls out a knife and stabs the boy to death. The police ask her why she would do such a thing, and she replies that her son was a liability to her, and her family had always held the belief that someone who can’t walk isn’t really human. When the astonished officer points out that he would have been able to walk in a couple months when the cast came off, her only response is, “He didn’t have two usable legs right then, so he wasn’t really a human being. It’s not murder; I was just getting rid of baggage.”
  • So what’s left?  Most scientists tells us humans are just animals that happen to have the most complex brains in the animal kingdom, so how does that help us?  It doesn’t.  Religion tells us that God knew us before we were born but doesn’t elaborate on exactly when the soul enters the body.  In both cases, there is no evidence for a specific point in development being that instant of the beginning of life, which leaves us with only the default answer:  Conception.
  • Quoting myself again, “The instant an egg is fertilized, it is a living entity with a DNA code identifying it as both human and unique from the mother and the father. The only trait that exists equally within all humans is the section of our DNA identifying us as homo sapiens. Our species is biologically defined by that code. Remove any part of a normal human, lungs, heart, brain, skin, anything, and you’ll still have a human; likely a dead human with missing parts, but still a human. This section of DNA cannot be removed and cannot be changed without rendering an entity another creature altogether.

Anyone who tries to frame the debate in terms of choice or women’s rights is being either ignorant or intentionally dishonest, take your pick.  Those terms are used in an attempt to dredge up emotion linked to the civil rights movement by casting the opposition as bigots and fools trying to violate some right.  At the same time, it is a smokescreen to prevent people from looking too closely at the real issue, whether abortion is an infringement upon the most basic right, the right to life, of a defenseless child.  Another myth about abortion is that there are any altruistic motives in its supporters.  I’ve found that all, and I mean that literally, pro-abortion opinions stem from the desire for one or more of three things:  Political power, money, and convenience.  Though they steadfastly try to avoid it, with a “human” being defined as above, the matter becomes very simple:  Abortion is the premeditated, intentional destruction of a human being, the very definition of murder in the first degree.

If anyone cares to offer observations on or challenge my views and reasoning, by all means, give it a go, though I suggest you first take a moment to read this and see if a different articulation of my stance answers any questions.

www.daybydaycartoon…. Proving that conservative comedy is very real.

“With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you.” – Miyamoto Musashi

Well, that’s all for now.  Comments are open if you’ve got something on your mind, want to ask me a question, or just want to flame me for being a sexist pig.  Actually, I’ll either delete or make fun of (depending on the level of wackiness and/or hypocrisy involved) that last category.  Enjoy! 😉



  1. Cort,

    Saw your post mentioning your site over on the NB Erbe thread and took the liberty of comin over an checkin it out. I’ll begin by sayin that you’ve accomplished your goal of gettin the gearins a turnin, so h/t. So maybe now I can repay the favor.

    How would you classify spontaneous abortion?

    Also, I’d like to know your thoughts on the rare cases of abortion being performed to save the mothers life, would she be a 1st degree murderer or is that a case of justifiable homicide? Or if the pregnancy is completed and the mother dies in childbirth would the child be the murderer?

    I pose my questions in all seriousness. I’m stymied logistically on spontaneous abortion and I feel that it’s justifiable homicide and indeed the child is a murderer.

    Since you’ve given the abortion issue some thought I would appreciate your take on those issues.


  2. King,

    First, thanks for taking the time to read, consider, and post. Also, before I get into the issues, I’d like to first lay out the potential charges as I see them, just so we’re on the same page. Murder in the first degree requires that the accused have determined in advance to kill the victim. Murder in the second degree simply requires and intent to kill the victim at the time of the incident. Voluntary manslaughter is similar to murder 2, but involves diminished outside influence on the accused’s mental state, such as being provoked to rage or drunkenness. The general distinction is that the accused is not in a condition to realize his actions. Involuntary manslaughter is when an action is taken, knowing that it is potentially dangerous, which leads to a death. It is also known as criminally negligent homicide for this reason. Justifiable homicide is causing a death in instances where other actions would lead to severe injury or death for oneself or others. While generally used in instances of self-defense or defense of others, and there is no actual “attack” committed in these instances, I believe it would still be an appropriate summary in some instances. Now, on to the issues.

    If the spontaneous abortion (AKA miscarriage) happened without human intervention, then it is just a tragic death. If medical evidence could prove that the mother’s (or anyone else’s) actions, with no intent to harm the baby, caused the miscarriage, then it could be put to the courts as involuntary manslaughter, but that would be dependent on what actions were taken and whether the accused was aware that those actions could cause harm to the baby. Chances of this sort of charge actually leading to conviction in any but the most flagrant cases, however, strikes me as singularly unlikely.

    As for the rare instances in which medical professionals determine that continuing a pregnancy will most likely lead to the mother’s death, this situation needs to be broken down a bit further. If it is determined that the mother will die, but the baby will live, I believe it must be the mother’s choice. If she chooses to sacrifice her own live for her child’s, it’s not our business to impose judgment on that greatest sacrifice. Likewise, if she chooses to save her own life, this would technically be justifiable homicide for both her and the doctor performing the abortion, but I doubt it would be listed as anything other than a tragic event. However, if it is determined that the mother and child will both die, there is no choice to be made. The doctors would be obligated to save at least one life by performing the abortion, just like a field medic would have to save one person for which he has supplies and training rather than trying to save both and having them both die. Again, this would technically be justifiable homicide.

    In the case of the mother dying in childbirth of unforeseen circumstances, the child is totally innocent. The baby has neither the malice needed for a charge of murder (first or second degree), the intentional action needed for a charge of voluntary manslaughter, nor the understanding of danger needed for a charge of involuntary manslaughter. I doubt this would even be considered homicide at all due to the child’s inability to control it’s impact on the mother in a significant way.

    Again, thanks for taking the time to give it consideration. It’s nothing if not an important issue, and it seems too many people on both sides of the debate are just parroting what they’ve heard elsewhere. Thanks, also, for bringing up a couple issues that hadn’t really occurred to me at which to take an in depth look. I had to take some time to work through exactly how my views and the law apply in each situation, and that’s always a good exercise. I’ll be interested to hear what you think. Also, if there’s anything I’ve said that you disagree with, by all means let me know what and why. Criticism (well, at least the reasonable kind) does more to sharpen the mind than anything else, in my humble opinion. 😉

  3. Cort,

    Thanks for replyin. I appreciate your thoughts. I too had looked at the legal definitions of the various types of homicide before my original post. It was helpful in sorting out how I felt about medically justified abortion.

    As to the others, it’s tough. Spontaneous abortion, at least rationally, is indeed simply a tragic death. I also, reached the conclusion that it would be within (however, highly unlikely) the realm of possibility that involuntary manslaughter charges could be brought against the mother in this regard.

    With the child, it’s difficult to articulate why I still feel that the child is a murderer, yet I do. The child is doing what it is naturally programed to do, i.e. be born, yet that act directly results in the death of it’s mother. I reckon it’s the whole cause and effect thing that is impairing my resolution with this line of thought. Just because the law says that child isn’t guilty of murder, doesn’t change the fact that the childs actions caused the death of the mother. Then I get into the whole what is murder anyway and so on. Anyway, I thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

    Thanks again for takin the time to reply and I’ll return with some more thoughts, and maybe some constructive criticism ;-), soon.

    Take care,

  4. King,

    Considering you’re the only one who’s bothered replying, I should be thanking you for the response, not the other way around. 😉

    Regarding the child, I would still argue that the child’s lack of malice and absence of understanding of their actions removes any possibility of guilt. However, there are several other factors to consider.

    First, birth requires action from the mother (labor) and/or a doctor (C-section or other surgical procedure), so it can’t be said that the child’s actions exclusively caused the mother’s death in childbirth.

    Second, even assuming the child was capable of understanding his or her actions, would not the struggle to escape the mother’s womb be a form of self-defense? The child (and, in normal pregnancies, the mother) would die from inaction, so the child’s actions can be viewed as instinctual self-preservation.

    What about instances where the mother’s labor causes complications (such as BP spikes causing a stroke) leading to her death? In that case, the mother’s actions, no less intentional or understood than the child’s, lead to her own death. To consider the child a murderer, wouldn’t this also have to be considered suicide?

    How about instances where the birth goes well, do you still have to consider the bodily damage to the mother (bleeding, BP fluctuations, pelvic damage, etc) as making the child guilty of battery (causing harm with only one’s body)?

    Lastly, you have to distinguish between intentional or expected results and the rare but tragic kind. Most births go off with minimal complications, and the baby’s actions are no different in these than when there are problems. If the same actions, the only actions possible in the situation, in so many cases cause no problems, can you hold a child accountable in any way when those same actions do lead to the mother’s death, or wouldn’t it make more sense to consider that the mother’s condition at the time or circumstances beyond either the child’s or the mother’s control are to blame?

    I hope this helps a little, or at least gives you a different perspective to consider. I simply can’t conceive of holding a child accountable in any way for actions that were necessary to its survival, typically cause little problem, and were performed with no malice or understanding of potential consequences. Maybe something I say can change your mind, maybe not, but it is nice to have an actual discussion rather than dealing with the typical unfounded or non-sequitur arguments I typically get on abortion, so thanks.

  5. Cortillean-
    Input from an older man, a father of 8, a grandfather of 7. My eight children were not all born alive. One, (whom I named Brian even though advised by a hospital counselor to not name the baby to prevent more stress(???) another aborted in a tubal pregnacy that threatend my wife’s life.

    First–I am mostly with you in your opinions. I am pleased that you hold life so sacred.

    Secondly, confession– In spite of my stron pro-life position, I have been involved in two incidnts dealing with abortion. The first, many years ago– a young woman co-worker who was a friend of the family confided in me that she was pregnant and had scheduled an abortion at a local hospital. She had tole her family that she was going on a busines trip for a couple of days. She needed sopmeone to drop her off at the hospital and pick her up. She also needed someplace to park her car for a couple of days. I assited her. In another case, a young male family member neee money to help pay for his girl friend’s abortion. I donated.

    For me, they were life altering events. I have never forgotten nor forgiven myself. Having lost a child at birth, I was familiar with the pain of the loss and here I was helping others to do that which, to me , was murder. I cannot change it. I cannot go back and undo it. It is a permanent decision. In neither case was I made aware of the sex of the child. I have tried to forget. I cannot. In recent times, my youngest son’s sons girl friend became pregnant They are opposed to abortion and had the child, a baby girl. They lived withd my wife and I until just a month ago. They live in another state and I do not get to see my yopungest, dearest, closest grandchild. I miss her so much it is hard to believe.

    How then could one, knowing what that conceived child will develop into, so casually, dispose (murder), of an innocent? Is it my religious upbringimg?? Is it my fear of eternal punishment?? I think not. Like you I have carefully considered the circumstances and with my own experiences come to my judgment.

    I disagree with my religion’s opposition to contraception. Other than that, I am in accord.

    One could go on with this discussion and opinions for days. so I will cut to the cahse and list some final thoughts.

    A woman’s body and a woman’s rights over it– when a woman marries, the two become one. It is not her decision only. It would be wrong for a husband to get a vasectomy without hi wife’s knowledge (and approval0. It is equally wrong on a marriage basis for any woman to get an abortion without her husband’s knowledge and approval. Thus, the murder of an innocent requires two accomplices and may reduce that number.

    Finally, I worked in a school district fo many years. The principal at one school was a Ctaholic rised and educatedwoman. She was rpo-abortion and anti-death penalty. She asked me one day why I would condone the death penalty and yet was anti-abortion. My response was –“I should be directing that question at you in reverse and it would be “why are you willing to kill an innocent, helpless, vulnerable human being and then protect the life of a guilty, evil person who takes human life?”” I did not get an answer.

    Apologies for the length—.

  6. Sorry for the long delay in replying. The weekend was spent moving from the dorms back home for the summer, and… well, I’m not entirely sure where yesterday went; mostly reading up on what I’d missed the previous couple of days, I think. I’d noticed and approved your comments back on Saturday but just couldn’t find the time to key a reply. It’s time to remedy that.

    First, you got me thinking, so thanks for that. 😉 I was rolling around how to mention that it’s nice having input from someone with vastly more experience in the real world than myself (and it is) as I read through the rest of the comment, and something sparked off a tangent. Experience, for all it teaches us, also ingrains biases and reduces our tendency (whatever of it might exist earlier) to critically examine our own beliefs, reasons, and actions. In the same way that it becomes more difficult to learn a new language as we age, our brains settle into comfortable paths when evaluating problems, and accepting new or different ideas and responses becomes increasingly difficult. In short, we become set in our ways. This being the case, it strikes me as ironic that youth, the ones who should be nearest immunity to the biases that we build up over time, are also the ones most prone to having their thoughts and actions dominated by emotion.

    I think I was lucky to have access to a gifted program (the sort where certain elementary students go to a special school one day out of the week) where a third of the day was spent on exercises collectively known as “Critical Thinking”, intended to encourage the development of analysis and problem-solving skills. In high school, I was also fortunate to have a teacher who spent roughly half of one year’s English classes discussing logic, fallacies, and various subjects related to the evaluation of arguments, thoughts, and motivations. While it’s impossible to judge my own mental development with any objectivity, I do feel that this grounding in reason and logic are as much to credit for my present condition, and I believe a requirement that similar subject material be taught throughout K-12 would benefit our country more than any other subject. Looking at the political landscape, the vast majority of conservatism’s losses are due at least in large part to the prevalent inability to rationally evaluate arguments and information. I seem to be the exception to the rule, and we’re losing ground because “critical thinking” has been replaced with “thinking with your heart” or simply removed with no replacement at all in too much of our education.

    To come full circle and arrive back at the topic from which this tangent started, I don’t view my positions as the extension of holding life any more sacred than most people*. Rather, I view them as the results of having the critical mindset needed to ignore emotional appeals and view the life of even the least of the unborn as equally human, to rationalize (fourth definition, not first) the issue and evaluate it as objectively as possible. I’ve been described as cold, and, while it is not an unsuitable description for my demeanor most of the time, I do not take it as an insult at all. It is the inability of so many people to rationally view an unborn child, even when it is no more than a single cell, as having the same humanity as the woman carrying the child that has dragged us to this point. As I noted in my comments, it is tremendously ironic that pro-abortion advocates, while claiming, and perhaps even believing, that their cause is one of human rights, their discrimination against the unborn because of temporary physical differences is reprehensible even beyond racism. The only plausible explanation for this (barring the rare and truly evil people who accept that they murder or encourage the murder of children) is that they have allowed the emotional impact of the mother to shape their belief that the emotionally unimpressive, undeveloped child. That advances in imaging technology allowing us to better see the developing child have brought the pro-life side gains is further evidence of my belief.

    Back to your comments, you have my condolences, however late or by now unnecessary, on the loss of a child. At the same time, as I stated to HK above, I hold abortion in cases such as ectopic pregnancies a decision to be made by the mother (and mandatory in such cases as the child is deemed beyond saving). It’s interesting to note that the Catholic Church, with which I do have considerable disagreements, seems to hold approximately the same stance, although I would argue (on a very slow day) that the focus on “indirect abortion” is an unnecessary bit of moral justification. To me, it is sufficient that there be desire to save both lives but action taken on the understanding that only one can be saved, an extension of self-defense. My only real complaint is that it should release fewer statements and act more swiftly to ostracize so-called Catholics who support abortion. It may well not be my place to criticize this particular part of the Church’s internal affairs, but it seems that even unrepentant, public support for abortion should be grounds for prompt excommunication rather than merely discussing possible reprisals. I recall seeing demands for Pelosi’s excommunication no more than a couple months ago despite her years of support for abortion. I can’t help but wonder if it weakens the Church’s position to appear soft on someone because of their political power. Nonetheless, barring my complete misunderstanding of its teachings, the Church has my full support in such actions as it does take to oppose abortion.

    That last paragraph went rather off the rails on a wild tangent, so I will try to stay a bit more focused. Regarding your assistance of the young woman, there are many details that would impact such a decision, but I could conceive of making the same choice, though informing her parents first, and being wholly justified in doing so. If she was determined to go, access to abortions is too easy to prevent her from succeeding even without your assistance, but the time afforded could be used to attempt to make her reconsider. At worst, giving her some comfort through such a self-inflicted tragedy and preventing someone less scrupulous from taking advantage of her during an emotionally vulnerable period are not the same as facilitating the murder of her child. It is certainly a thin line, though, defendant upon her having already decided to go through with the killing. As you said that she had scheduled the abortion before talking to you, it would seem that she was determined. As for donating money to pay for an abortion, I really have little to say other than that such was crossing that line. I sincerely hope that, should I ever be put in a similar situation, I would be able to resist the all-too-human urge to help others and realize that such “help” is truly nothing of the kind. This may sound harsh, but your own forgiveness of yourself is unnecessary. What are necessary are the forgiveness of the Lord and the understanding that a mistake was made. The ended life’s soul will be better served by your never repeating the same mistake and even by sharing it with others that they might not make it as well, but neither the soul nor our Lord wants you tormented by your mistake.

    Contraception is another very fine line. My position depends wholly upon whether or not the substance is truly a contraceptive, by which I mean strictly such substances as prevent the fertilization of an egg. Those which prevent a the child (from the point of existence as a zygote onward) from attaching to the uterus wall or otherwise prevent it from continuing its growth are abortion agents, not contraceptives, and I view their use exactly the same as I do an abortion. Unfortunately, this introduces the element of uncertainty in that it may be impossible to know if their use actually destroyed a life or not. Pointing out that the substances’ purpose is exclusively the destruction of a human life is unlikely to prevent an opponent from painting me or one holding views like mine as an extremist attacking a mere possibility. I’m not familiar with the Church’s stance on true contraceptives such as spermicides, but I do not oppose their use. Any opposition to their use based upon the biblical exhortation not to spill one’s “seed” on the ground or that it amounts to destroying part of one’s own body would be met by my observations that the vast majority of sperm dies regardless of where it goes, and that even lightly scratching an itch destroys living skin cells. Neither of the two involve causing noticeable harm to one’s own body or another’s.

    On the subject of a husband’s rights regarding his wife, if we are discussing non-medical-emergency abortions, I agree with you. However, in the even of an abortion being required to save the mother’s life, I do not accept that anyone’s wishes save the mother’s (in the event that the child cannot be saved, even hers are to be disregarded and all measures taken to save her life) must be considered. If the decision is between her own life or the child’s, even the husband has no right to demand one choice or the other, just as he would have no right to demand either that she kill or allow herself to die.

    Your mention of the principal brings up an observation (thanks once more) on the pro-abortion mindset and, perhaps, the reason for the size of the militant wing of their movement. Abortionists must be on the attack or their argument quickly falls to pieces. This would explain the insistence on framing the debate around “women’s rights”. Their position is indefensible beyond a broken record-style, “It’s not really a human being, so we aren’t committing murder,” when pressed on the subject of life, so they enter the debate already on the offensive using “women’s rights” as their main point of attack. Stripped of their “the best defense is a good offense” plan, as I make certain to do at the beginning of dealing with any abortionist, they really have no position upon which to fall back. They have no answers to questions they haven’t framed for themselves, so those who realize this attack and attack to keep the reality from being exposed, and the pliant masses follow that lead. I’m still hoping for a day to come when the arguments here or reproductions elsewhere can strip away the mask and force a pro-abortion mind to reevaluate its positions.

    Apologies for the length—.” Heh. I think the rest of the post speaks for me, but I’ll go ahead and quote myself on playing Whack-A-Troll after an frustrating day: “…long posts are more or less my hallmark. I tend to subscribe to the theory that properly explaining ideas to other people requires more than a few lines.” A long post means you took the time to think and type it, both of which I appreciate.

    *It could be argued that I grant life considerably less weight than some. My opinion on self-defense is that lethal force is not only acceptable but preferable due to the fact that death is the only guarantee of no further threat, the likelihood of repeat offenses, and the possibility of insane litigation. I extend the same philosophy to the protection of others. If one had the power to absolutely suppress a threat without killing, that would be the best option, but I know of no human like that. I believe that the death penalty is underused and that it should be the mandatory sentence for both rapists and murderers. In addition, while it is impossible to know beforehand, I do not believe that I would be greatly affected by needing to end a life were I a soldier, so long as I found the cause just. Perhaps this belief is the result of holding that regrets are for those who fail to learn from the past, or perhaps I really am colder than most. Nonetheless, I cannot accept that the lives of the unborn can be casually sacrificed for the convenience of women, and I find such acts more deeply evil even than a criminal executing a hostage in cold blood.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: